winning the cold war with a Saturn V?

[spacefire]

Just curious, if we replaced all the payload and TLI stage with warheads, would it have been possible to take out all Soviet Union's big cities with a single launch? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[steve82]

Don't know about the Saturn V but at the height of the cold war it was said that one Poseiden submarine, armed with MIRV'd warheads, could wipe out 90% of the industrial capacity of the Soviet Union.

 

[qso1]

That would be possible with a single launch of a Saturn-V so long as the warheads have their own PBVs. But what happens if you loose the single saturn-V due to malfunction or a successful enemy pre-emptive strike?<br /><br />Thats one reason nuclear warheads are spread over a number of missiles.<br /><br />But that wouldn't be winning a cold war anyway. That would be the end of a hot war if we have to launch that many nukes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

steve82:<br />Don't know about the Saturn V but...<br /><br />Me:<br />Thats true. That estimate came during the Reagan era IIRC and was based on known major industrial targets and a single Poseidon or Trident missile carrying up to 14 MIRVs.<br /><br />The actual number of warheads on a missile at any given time is classified although the Trident is generally listed as having 8 warheads. This single missile launch scenario is one of the reasons I've mentioned in the past that North Korea won't launch an ICBM to the U.S. unless Kim Jong has gone clinically insane. <br /><br />But with a boat that can carry up to 24 missiles, you'd have a few spares on hand. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

I should point out that the Trident C and Trident D were related in name only. Trident C was a Poseidon with extra capabilities. Trident D was much larger and the main reason why the Ohio SSBN are much larger than their predecessors. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[qso1]

I seem to recall that. Of course, both can do the job of bombing a nation into the stone age with just one or two missiles. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[pathfinder_01]

However as a weapon the Saturn V would just be pretty impractical. With its cryogenic propellants (which can not be preloaded) and outside unprotected launch site it would be pretty easy to for an attacker to destroy the Saturn V on the launch pad. <br /><br />The Titan II was created to address the problems of using the Atlas and other cryogenically fueled missiles as a weapon. It could be launched from a silo, and used hypergolic instead of Cryogenic fuels. <br />

 

[qso1]

Excellent points. I usually think of that myself but I used to wonder if the Saturn-V could do the job as proposed here and it could, but for the reasons mentioned here, its not practical. And that was exactly the reason Titan II came about, but it too was rapidly outmoded once solid fueled missiles (Minuteman land based) became operational. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[pathfinder_01]

Another interesting point on throw weight is the Russian rockets. Their great throw weight gave them the intial advantage in the space race. <br /><br />At the start of the space race the US had developed the atomic bomb into a small lightweight bomb that simply did not need huge rockets to be tossed to Moscow. The Russians not having the bomb as long were developing their A-bombs at the same time as their rockets. They choose to develop more powerful rockets because they were not sure how light they could make their warheads. <br /><br /><br /><br />Their more powerful rocket allowed them to basically launch sputnik, sputnik 2, and Vostock using the Soyuz rocket. All they did was develop better 2nd stages as needed. The rocket that launched Yuri into orbit, today launches men to the ISS. <br /><br />One of the great ironies of today is that the rocket named Atlas (the U.S. ‘s first ICBM) Originally created to toss a warhead from cape Canaveral to Russia(with love). Now has Russian engines. <br /><br />

 

[vogon13]

1 nuke detonated in each of the US's 100 largest cities would pretty much take us out of the game for 40 to 100 years.<br /><br />You can assume pretty much the same for Russia.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

In the Soviet Union during the Cold War, every space launcher had to have a military application. This included their largest rocket, the N-1. While it was never turned into a weapon because a) all of the reasons listed above, and b) 'cause it kept blowin' up, it is interesting to note that they actually did some paper studies. You can read a little bit about it at astronautix.com.<br /><br />Also, as far as I know, the START treaties mainly focused on land-based systems. While the USSR had more throw with there land-based ICBM, the US held the advantage with its Ohio class SSBN, which were not as strictly limited under START. While the Soviets had the Typhoon class SSBN, we could track them. The Ohio, on the other hand, was actually quieter than the ambient noise level in the ocean, so we held the upper hand on first strike. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Subs are first strike weapons because they can reach their target before the target has a chance to shoot. That makes first strike weapons very dangerous.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Actually, until the advent of Trident D, sub-based missiles were not accurate enough for first-strike. Trident D had the advantage of GPS. Within a few seconds of breaking the surface, it would know where it was and was making adjustments to the motor to put it on target. In fact, some footage has the missile leaving the water with a yaw spinning motion. That is, the missile did not leave the water perfectly vertical. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>but it too was rapidly outmoded once solid fueled missiles (Minuteman land based) became operational.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Agreed. Solid fuels made missiles more compact and probably speed up the launch procress. That would be very important if an enemy missile is inbound to the launch site. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[qso1]

1207:<br />Both sides could wipe out each other. It would take more than one launch however.<br /><br />Me:<br />Good points here as well. The sub launched missiles are the most secure portion of what was once known in the U.S. as the strategic triad. The submarines inability to be readily detected contributing in large part to its security.<br /><br />Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) IMO did contribute to the relative stability that existed once the U.S. and Russia reached rough parity in arms after about 1970. Russia in the late 1970s became a concern when the SS-18 was deployed because of the view that the SS-18 was a first strike weapon.<br /><br />Al Gore was quite up on technical issues, I recall that well. Especially in nuclear arms issues. For this reason, I had hoped he would be able to reverse the stagnant NASA budget situation in the 1990s.<br /><br />The U.S. unilaterally leveled off the number of ICBMs deployed to 1,054 after 1967. FBMs were leveled out at 656. The Russians had roughly 1,500 deployed ICBMs, their peak number (1,519) being reached in 1971. Their peak SLBM or FBM numbers exceeded 900. Now both sides are at approximately half these numbers. Usually arms experts point to the number of warheads each side has. In part because bombers and other aircraft can deliver a number of warhead types whereas ICBMs and FBMs deliver a set number of warhead types.<br /><br />The U.S. Minuteman III had 3 X 550 Kt mirvs, the SS-18 could be fitted with up to 10 X 1 Mt mirv.<br /><br />It was actually the START treaty that reduced arms. The Salt I and II talks addressed earlier issues such as limiting the number of arms and then allowing Russia to have a larger number of them to make up for their supposed technical inferiority. The Salt talks lead to START talks which lead to a reduction in nuclear arms. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

The launch process was certainly sped up by minuteman deployement. Minuteman has the fastest response times compared to Titans and Atlas rockets, especially Atlas or any cryo propelled missile. Atlas was coffin launched. Upon reciept of an EWO, the Atlas had to be raised to the firing position, fueled, then launched. The Soviets had a similar problem with their original R-7 Soyuz launcher based ICBM. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Atlas's skin was extremely thin. How was it able to withstand the stress of the stack being erected whole? NASA probably got around the problem by erecting it vertically. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[qso1]

I don't know the answer to that specifically but I have some photos of an Atlas assembly line in a book that also show it in a horizontal position.<br /><br />IIRC, I think they pressurized it with helium to retain strength. Even at a vertical position, the weight of warheads, spacecraft, or adapters would collapse the vehicle if there were not some method of keeping it rigid. The Atlas would be pressurized with helium until propellant loading, again IIRC. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"However as a weapon the Saturn V would just be pretty impractical. With its cryogenic propellants (which can not be preloaded) and outside unprotected launch site it would be pretty easy to for an attacker to destroy the Saturn V on the launch pad."<br /><br />True. Something the Soviets quickly realized which is why the first Soviet ICBM was also the last to use liquid oxygen. Afterwards the Soviets focused on storable liquid propellant rockets for their missiles, even for the submarine launched missiles. Only today are the Russians taking the step of replacing their liquid fuel rockets with the solid fueled Topol ICBM. <br /><br />"The Titan II was created to address the problems of using the Atlas and other cryogenically fueled missiles as a weapon. It could be launched from a silo, and used hypergolic instead of Cryogenic fuels."<br /><br />I believe the largest operational rocket that was originally intended as a weapon was the Soviet Proton rocket. Though the Proton was never deployed as a weapon and only employed as a space vehicle launcher. <br /><br />

 

[qso1]

gunsandrockets:<br />"The Titan II was created to address the problems of using the Atlas and other cryogenically fueled missiles as a weapon. It could be launched from a silo, and used hypergolic instead of Cryogenic fuels."<br /><br />Me:<br />In addition to that, the Titan I was a cryogenic oxidizer ICBM that the Titan II replaced as well.<br /><br />gunsandrockets:<br />Only today are the Russians taking the step of replacing their liquid fuel rockets with the solid fueled Topol ICBM.<br /><br />Me:<br />I recalled the SS-11 being the first Soviet solid propelled ICBM but wiki searched and found the SS-13 has that distinction. The SS-11 was liquid fuelled. Both have or are probably being replaced as you mentioned, by the Topol missile.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-13_Savage <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[mattblack]

>>Just curious, if we replaced all the payload and TLI stage with warheads, would it have been possible to take out all Soviet Union's big cities with a single launch?<<<br /><br />Oh, cut it out!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

ya'all forget one advantage: you could launch and load the Saturn pretending it was a lunar mission. Just seal off the Cape for a few weeks while you finalize the preparations and load theb 'astronauts' in.<br />I assume the TLI comes preassembled so nobody would know exactly what's inside, though discerning eyes would for sure recognize it not being a classical rocket. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Er, that would have to be DURING propellant loading. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Only today are the Russians taking the step of replacing their liquid fuel rockets with the solid fueled Topol ICBM.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />They were a little faster with sub-based missiles. They were probably shocked by how much faster the Polaris could launch than their own sub-based missiles. Besides, a Polaris sub like the <i>George Washington</i> could carry more missiles. I believe it was 3 missiles for early Soviet subs versus 12 or maybe 16 for the <i>George Washington</i>. Before the Soviets could get one misslile off, let alone all three, the <i>George Washington</i> could probably fire its entire load. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Not really. The Cape was never sealed off. So the Soviets would have been tipped off when you implemented the restrictions. It would also be good only if you wanted to start -- rather than end -- WWIII. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

As I understand it, what you call the "TLI Stage" is the 3rd stage. TLI refers to a burn. Once the Apollo craft was in orbit, the 3rd stage would shut down -- with plenty of fuel left. After an orbit or two, it would be reignited for the TLI burn. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>